Friday, 29 October 2010

Boris reaches the parts that other Conservatives do not reach. This seems uncontestable, as measured by his victory in the London mayoral election and the wide spread of those votes. Sure, he pisses off some Tories with his inconsistencies and stunts (let alone being a shagger extraordinaire and therefore a cad to his long-suffering wife), but he has an ability that so obviously eluded Cameron at the last election- that of being able to secure a majority from a broad constituency.

One of the things that people like about Boris is that he is not overly political - he jumps in with both feet instead of dilly-dallying on the edge like so many politicians who are terrified of upsetting even a tiny minority.

But he has made a mistake over housing benefit and exacerbated it by using imagery which is just bonkers. With next year's re-election in mind, he has made a fool of himself. Kosovo-style social cleansing, my foot! Doubtless his quick mind hadn't quite approved it for compliance purposes as he started blurting it out, and he will have to retract this in toto, and issue an apology, I'll wager.

Here is the public opinion on the matter:

"...An ICM poll in June asked: "Do you support or oppose imposing a maximum weekly limit of £400 on Housing Benefit." Support was 68% with 23% opposed. Even among Labour voters there was strong support - by 57% to 35%.A YouGov poll in August asked: "Here are some policies the coalition government have announced in their first hundred days. For each one please say if you oppose or support it?" Among them was: "Putting a limit on housing benefit." 72% expressed support. 17% said they were opposed. Again even among Labour voters there was strong support - by 53% to 35%."(ConHome, Harry Phibbs)Boris still sees himself as PM after Cameron, or certainly harbours such ambition. Well, if he makes it, it will be as leader of a party other than the Tories; he cannot have improved his appeal to those outside London with this stunt.

I have to disagree with Thud - Boris is so NOT an underachieving arse. Not at all. Boris went to Eton on scholarship, not with George Osborne's Daddy's money, and as Mayor of London hasn't done too bad without Call-Me-Dave's connections. Boris has managed to maintain a journalist presence with being a politician. Not an easy job. Most don't. In fact most journos simply don't make it into politics, certainly not ones as outspoken as Boris.

Boris was a popular and succesful MP. I know this because I canvassed with him and heard the reactions of the people in his constituency. I hope he wins another term as London Mayor.

I don't think he's made a mistake in relation to housing benefit at all. Not at all. The proposed changes to housing benefit are based on the most stupid argument I've ever ever heard. Really dim. But then it;s no surprise that a bunch of Tory toffs who've always lived off Daddy's money and never had to really worry about balancing a chequebook in their lives have come up with half-arsed idealogical financial policies that won't work.

The mistake was in the language he used to convey his point, and I think he's apologised for that. But the point was still good. And I think Ken Clarke agrees with him?

Idle, I'd be interested to hear your reaction to the proposed amalgamation of our military forces with foreign ones. Here is one ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2147016/Royal-Navy-warships-may-form-part-of-EU-fleet.html but I think changes to themilitary are more widespread than just the navy.

And Philipa, nobody is criticising Boris for having gone to Eton. Having said that if he managed to get to Eton on a scholarship and still cannot see the flaw in his position then all that training in how to think clearly went to waste.

Blue, the argument isn't really confined in the terms you state. All you mention is your reluctance to pay taxes here. So move. After all, where is your argument for paying taxes that go to the EU and overseas aid? Is it benefit claimants or just housing benefits you object to?

The moves the ConDems have proposed for changes to housing benefit (and bear in mind i'm not necesarily opposed to changes or cuts, just stupid ones) don't actually and directly tackle the reasons they are making those changes. Which means they are either liars, stupid, or stupid liars! And given that they target the poor they are callous stupid liars.

Philipa, I object to the state taking money from me to give to people so that they can enjoy a higher standard of living than I can afford with the money I earn.

My neighbours are entirely subsidised by the state and enjoy:

- the same size and quality of flat as I have- food, drink, heating and electricity- a massive big telly- a shiny modern car

I don't have a massive big telly or a shiny modern car. And I work bloody hard. Tell me which bit of that is "fair"? Tell me which bit of me asking for welfare to be limited to necessities is callous?

I also object to wasteful EU spending and most overseas aid, but that is not the subject of this post. I had not realised that every comment had to include an exhaustive list of things I object to. "My bad" as they say.

Blue - I can't say I'm over chuffed about it either. And the EU contribution And the Overseas aid. I take your point about the exhastive list but I thought it worth mentioning the other stuff as the ConDems do seem to have an idealogical axe to grind, rather than sensibly dealing with the deficit, as they claim to be doing. So I think it worth clarifying where people are coming from. And I think the ConDems are crap.

You see, they moan about landlords making money from the taxpayer. All well and good - it's a good point and needs addressing. So do they give powers to a fair rent officer (thre always used to be a fair rent officer, where'd they go?) No, they do not. The Tories sold off council houses (something I opposed at the time) and so pushed people into private rented acc. I accept that some of these homes are great but many more are not. So you have people bringing up babies in slums with no heating and paying some wideboy over £600pm for the privelage (see Panorama). Taking money off that single mother won't cause the rent to be any less. It will cause the mother and child to eat less. The ConDems are stupid.

Then you have the situation where I am living in a home I worked for and, due to disability, need to keep through interest payment on a mortgage, which is less than 30% of the cost of private rental. Bt they have cut that benefit IN HALF. So the ConDems are actually CREATING a benefits culture because I would be better off selling my house and blowing the proceeds, or losing the house and the mortage co. getting the money. I could then get AT LEAST 80% of private rent paid, which would cost the tax payer more. It really IS a barmy system - you try, and get next to nowt, you don't and get everything. If you'll pardon the expression, it really is fucking stupid.

Then you have the situation where you keep benefits (and don't have to re-sign on, fill all the forms in etc.) if you work 16 hours but not if you work between 16 and 20. So if people are offered more work they are turning it down. I've heard this in the benefits office. Not because they want to but because they are frightened of having to go through another 6-8 weeks of no money AT ALL whilst the paperwork for a new claim goes through. And they don't have savings to make that an easy thing to not worry about.

You see, the ConDems might say this is wrong and that is wrong but they are not coming up with any real solutions. In fact, they are intending to spend MORE.

Many things need to be addressed, Blue. But not by these bunch of arseholes.

Sorry Idle, I'm not against Tories who can handle money, but these clearly can't.

Hi there would you mind stating which blog platform you're using? I'm planning to start my own blog in the near future but I'm having a tough time choosing between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design seems different then most blogs and I'm looking for something completely unique.P.S Apologies for getting off-topic but I had to ask!Look into my site ... Lexington Law

Wow, awesome blog layout! How long have you been blogging for?you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your site is excellent, as well as the content!Here is my homepage ... how can I get taller

Thank you a lot for sharing this with all people you really recognize what you're speaking approximately! Bookmarked. Kindly also talk over with my site =). We could have a link alternate agreement among us

Read This Book

Click on the Book Cover

WS Churchill's Words of Warning:

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves".

Too True

"That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era.”

The All-Time Best Daily Mash

Idle

On Limited Government

"We are a nation with a government, not the other way round".

Reagan, inaugural speech, Jan 20 1981

(Interim) Last Word on the Subject

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

Prof Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Atmospheric Brainbox of the World